Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.

    288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wis. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Finding a period of five years pre-suit and three years post constituted a lengthy infringement

    Neither of Snap–On's cited cases involved the grant of a new trial to hear testimony of this sort. SeeSociedad Espanola de Electromedicina y Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X–Ray Co, Inc. , 226 F.Supp.3d 520, 532 (W.D.N.C. 2016) ; Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc. , No. 2:07-cv-00331-APG-PAL, 281 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1094-95, 2017 WL 3896672, at *6 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2017). Rather, in those cases the court considered testimony by the infringer's employees pertaining to a belief of non-infringement in deciding whether to enhance damages.

  2. Halo Elecs. v. Bel Fuse, Inc.

    No. 2021-1861 (Fed. Cir. May. 6, 2022)   1 Legal Analyses

    On September 5, 2017, the district court denied Halo's new motion for enhanced damages and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 281 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1095-96 (D. Nev. 2017). The clerk followed that direction and entered a document styled "judgment" on September 6, 2017.

  3. Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA Newburyport- MA, LLC

    Civil Action 1:17-cv-12375-IT (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2024)

    Mersen contends that opinion letters by counsel can be “powerful evidence” that an accused infringer was not intentionally infringing. Def's Mem. 12 (citing Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 281 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1091 (D. Nev. 2017)) [Doc. No. 180]. While opinion letters are not necessarily dispositive, in this case they do undermine Littelfuse's efforts to show Mersen's purported intent to infringe.

  4. Pierce Mfg. v. E-One, Inc.

    8:18-cv-617-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022)

    Halo, 579 U.S. at 111-12 (explaining that, “without being ‘wanton' or ‘reckless, '” a scientist, engineer, or technician working for an accused infringer may reasonably decide an accused product does not infringe a patent or that the patent is invalid) (Breyer, J., concurring); Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 281 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1093-95 (D. Nev. 2017) (on remand from the United States Supreme Court, declining to enhance damages where defendant relied on the opinion of its engineer who “had 30 years of experience in and knowledge of the relevant field”); Omega Patents v. CalAmp, 920 F.3d 1337, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (vacating and remanding the court's enhanced damages award where a senior director of the accused infringer analyzed the patent and should have been permitted to testify concerning the infringer's state of mind and his conclusions regarding infringement and validity).